St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-06-12
4 Decision in the District Court That
Proves Of Interest and Of I'M
portance.
Hereafter the State Must Take Charge
Of the Regulation of the Liquor
Traffic.
The Municipal and Police Courts Fave
No Jurisdiction Throughout
the State.
An Interesting Opinion Of the City At
torney---Facts in Connection With (
High Licenses.

No little interest was created in mu-
nicipal and saloon circles yesterday by
the announcement that Judge Rea had
filed an opinion which gave a bad black
eye to the ''crusade enforcement law
which was designed to enforce high II
cense and provide the easy means OF
punishment by the municipal court.
Exaggerated reports of the effect of the
decision were in circulation yesterday
afternoon, but the facts are found
below. The decision was made i'll the
habeas corpus proceedings by which.
Conrad Bayha, recently sentenced to
thirty days in Jail and fined $50 for llle-
gal liquor selling by the municipal;
court, intended to secure his re-
lease, and which came up before Judge
Rea yesterday afternoon, when Il. Il:
Penney and T.W. Hammond appeared
for the prisoner. They held that the
pose a fine and imprisonment both.
County Attorney Davis was not dis
posed to dispute this point, but argued
that the Crandall law did confer such
authority when it said all cases under it
could be heard in any mu-
nicipal court having jurisdiction
thereof. The judge decided that
any person arrested for a violation
of the Crandall liquor law could not be
tried or the case determined in the mu-
nicipal court, Justices court or Ill any
police court in the state, for the reason
that the law requires the court to both
fine and impris0n, thereby taking such
cases out of the jurisdiction of the
above-named courts. This decision dis
charges the prisoner, cripples the Gran
dali law and gives as the only remedy
the taking of all liquor cases into the
district court. Mary Quade and Peter
Laurer, who were arrested on similar
charge, were also released
City Attorney Seagrave Smith was re-
QueSted to give his opinion as to the
practical operation of Judge Rea's de-
ciSion, which he did as follows:
THE CITY ATTORNEYS VIEWS.
In the first place the constitution of
the state provides that Justices courts
shall have Jurisdiction in criminal cases
to impose fine not to exceed 800 or
| Imprisonment not to exceed three
months. The municipal court act con-
ferred upon that court the same Juris-
diction in criminal cases that the con-
StitutiOn and laws of the state conferred
OH Justices courts. By that, neither
Justices court nor the municipal court
was authorized TO inflict punishment
to the extent of the fine limited and also
Imprisonment. The fair construction
these courts might impose fine
of 800, or in case the fine
was not paid to imprison for a term not
exceeding ninety days, or they might
omit the fine altogether and intiict the
penalty of imprisonment. While the
Crandall law authorized justices of the
peace, police justices and municipal
courts to infiict punishment for the sale
of liquor without license, or for the
keeping open of saloon Sunday withia
license, by fine of 500 and imprisOf-
ment hot to exceed ninety days, the
punishment provided by that law eX-
ceeds the jurisdiction of the municipal
court. Consequently all violations of that
law respecting the sale of liquor withouta
license and respecting keeping open
saloons on Sunday must be prosecuted
in the district court. Complaints may
be made in the municipal court the same
as in higher OtfenseS, and the municipal
court may, if the evidence warrants,
bind person over to the district court,
there to answer to any Indictment that
may be found against him by the grand
jury. Or the grand jury may indict
person without his first being bound
over. The result of this case will be to
transfer all the business connected with
prosecuting otfenses OF the above kind
to the county attorney. The city attor-
ney will really have nothing more to do
with it.
If any of the salOonkeepers keep
open tomorrow, Sunday, they will Ger
taiiily be indicted and prosecuted to the
full extent of the law. Then if anyone
makes an objection they cannot again
procure a license. If man sells with
Out Ii 1ynn
he can be prosecuted in the municipal
court and bound over to the district
court, there to answer to an Indictment
for every offense, which may be every
day. That they will be indicted is GER
tain, and, if convicted, it is just as GER
tain that the judges of the district court
will inflict the heaviest punishment
upon them that the law allows-S10O fine
and thirty days imprisonment for each
and every OffenSe. And further, if
man
HAS BEEN CONVICTED
he can not take out 1000 license in
keeper makes application to the city
CT TX for license, may appear and file
objections. The saloon man will be
required to make affidavit that he has
not been convicted of violating any law
of the state, city or village for one year
previous to the date of his application.
If he can not make this affidavit the law
prohibits the authorities from granting
any license. If this matter is pressed
very closely, and l am inclined to think
it will be, there is not one saloon man
out of fifty who will get license. Be
fore the legislature took hold of the,
liquor question the municipal authori-
ties had the power to control the traffic
to some extent, but now they have not,
further than S -;ng that the state laws